From Eyal: "We all remember the "most progressive US senator"'s recent signature of a letter decrying the UN for not accommodating Israel more perfectly; his call for more Saudi intervention in Syria; his support for the weekly assassination lists and so on.

Well, what about the "Second most progressive senator", then? Polling suggests Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts holds that title. Warren was just given a fawning interview on the Young Turks' interview channel:

While she is not an assault-crazed zealot - beginning her replies with a desire to focus on finding political solutions through negotiations with Russia - she certainly does not criticize, let alone denounce, US activities in the region.

She is then asked "If at the end of the day Assad survives" (note the assumptions of heads-of-state the US doesn't like typically not surviving) "and is still the leader of Syria, can you live with that?"

Assad remaining as the leader of Syria, Senator Warren says that

"it depends on what the alternatives are, because the key for me is:

1. There cannot be a place that ISIS can retreat to 2. There cannot be a force that threatens to destabilize our allies 3. We cannot have this humanitarian crisis that just continue to unfold,

and he has proven that he is a monster, that he is willing to gas his own people

Those have to be our goals, and we have to be hard-nosed about keeping our eye on what the goals are."

Of course, the dead giveaway is number 2. The allies of Warren's United States in the region are Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey (most days anyway), Egypt, Jordan - which we, as opposed to the US, should want to destabilize, or rather foment revolutions in and against.

Now, number 3 is a combination of the questionable allegation regarding the chemical attack (*), and the sanctimonious cognitive dissonance regarding how the US' own role in killing civilians, aggravating humanitarian disasters and of course being armed to the teeth with nuclear and biological weapons (not to mention depleted uranium, white phosphore, napalm etc.) Also, the US had done almost nothing to alleviate the humantiarian catastrophe - both in terms of aid and in terms of letting refugees in. And I don't know that Warren has spoken out on this matter. So number 3 seems to me like mostly vacuous.

As for number 1 - ISIS has not had anywhere to retreat since, well, since it's gone on the retreat. And Mosul has almost fallen, and Raqqa seems to be coming along slowly but surely - with the Syrian regime having very limited participation in this effort (ok, to be fair, theyhave been holding long borders with ISIS which should not be discounted, and there's the Palmyra campaigns and now East Halab). So that 'key' is practically orthogonal to the question of the political goals of the US

in Syria in the mid-term and it'll become totally irrelevant in, what, a year? Year and a half tops.

But number 1 is also important in what Warren is _not_ including Al-Qaeda/JFS/HTS and friends in the group of those who must find no refuge and place for retreat. I guess those guys should always have the option to retreat to Langley, Virgina or some palace in Riyadh.

So the bottom line - as I read it - for the second most progressive senator is maintaing the order of oppressive Middle-Eastern states, and turning a blind eye to the Wahabiist militias related to and funded to some of them.

(*) The regime has killed massive amounts of people using regular munitions; more than ISIS and the Al-Nusra/FTS/HTS-affiliated factions combined if I'm not mistaken, so don't get me wrong on this. And precisely for this reason focusing on the chemical attack suggests a more self-interested concern about the Ba'ath regime's attack on Syrian civilians."

I often felt that the only people who believed in the existence and role of the Free Syrian Army are the Western correspondents in Beirut who have been desperately trying to prove that there are indeed effective and influential moderate and secular and feminist Syrian rebels but that they are not as famous. Here, the comrade of Western correspondents in Beirut, the loyal Saudi royal advocate, `Abdul-Rahman Al-Rahid, officially announces the death of the Free Syrian Army and calls for the formation of a yet another new Syrian opposition army. He says: "Indeed, there is no more an opposition Free Syrian Army, as we knew it. It has disintegrated, and has become small groups because it was targeted by Iranians and Russians and ISIS and "Nusrah" organizations and others". Good night.

Shaykh Zayid insisted that an Ikhwan thinker (Hasan Turabi) write the constitution of the UAE. He in fact wrote the constitution of several of the Gulf states (God himself wrote the constitution of Saudi Arabia).

"The Washington Post allowed contributor Ed Rogers to praise Donald Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia without disclosing that he’s a lobbyist for the Saudi Royal Court. The Post has repeatedly allowed Rogers to promote his lobbying clients’ interests without disclosure."

"On the other hand, if you factor in the increasing tensions between Hezbollah and Israel, then it could also prove to be the motivation for an invasion." Did Israel have a Hizbullah motivation in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, even before there was Hizbullah to invade and attack Lebanon? Do aggressor and occupying entities need motivations to attack and occupy? So should resistance to occupation be dissolved lest the existence give the occupation force motivation? Should the French resistance have dissolved itself lest the Nazis used their existence as a motivation to attack and kill more?

1) this did not start out of nothing. There were signs before. There were more signs before in Qatari regime media than in the Saudi/UAE media. Qatari regime media have been for months swiping but mildly against things in Saudi Arabia and UAE.
2) This last round was clearly launched by the Saudi/UAE alliance, and it is clear that it was prepared. Avalanche of articles and interviews were tossed into the ring immediately in the wake of Trump's visit.
3) Ironically, the Saudi regime media attack Qatar for being too close to US and Israel and to Iran. In other words, the Saudi regime still maintains it holds a pure position against Israel.
4) the Qatari regime media are still playing defensive: they refrain from attacking UAE and Saudi Arabia head on. The only thing that was launched yesterday was the video released "anonymously" on Youtube against the sons of Zayid in UAE. There are hints that this was produced by the Qatari regime.
5) Some Saudis are still publicly urging caution and restraints: these are the Saudi intellectuals and writers who are Ikhwanist and are fiercely opposed to what is (falsely) called in Saudi Arabia "the liberals", who are the staunch supporters of Muhammad bin Salman.
6) There is an overkill in the Saudi regime media: the likes of which we have not seen since the 1960s and Saudi regime campaign against Nasser. Saudi regime media never plays matter to that degree: but then again, this Muhammad bin Salman plays to a different tune in a new style.
7) Qatari regime media expresses hope of reconciliation and still insists that the matter is merely a misunderstanding. They are increasing the tone against Iranian and Syrian regime perhaps to show their credentials.
8) as someone who followed the Qatari-Saudi feud for years (and contributed to it on Aljazeera in the past) I sense something different this time. As if there is a Saudi scheme (not the first time) for a coup in Doha. The Qatari regime media and diplomatic response to the crisis in the first day exhibited signs of divisions and awkwardness.
9) Qatar attends to this feud with far more disadvantages than in the past: Aljazeera is no more the strong weapon it was.

Aljazeera posted this cartoon. A huge Saudi regime campaign followed on social media against it. Aljazeera later apologized and removed it. The cartoonist, Ikhwanist Ahmad Rahman, closed his Facebook page.

"Trump’s speech on Islamwas nuanced and showed empathy for the Muslim victims of jihadist terrorism (who make upas much as 95 percent of the total, by one estimate). He seemed to zero in on the problem when he said, “No discussion of stamping out this threat would be complete without mentioning the government that gives terrorists . . . safe harbor, financial backing and the social standing needed for recruitment.”But Trump was talking not of his host, Saudi Arabia, but rather of Iran. Now, to be clear, Iran is a destabilizing force in the Middle East and supports some very bad actors. But it is wildly inaccurate to describe it as the source of jihadist terror. According to an analysis of the Global Terrorism Database by Leif Wenar of King’s College London, more than 94 percent of deaths caused by Islamic terrorism since 2001 were perpetrated by the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other Sunni jihadists. Iran is fighting those groups, not fueling them. Almost every terrorist attack in the West has had some connection to Saudi Arabia. Virtually none has been linked to Iran."

Disclaimer: I don't know if Fareed Zakaria plagiarized this article. But I noticed that Washington Post editors inserted this disclaimer: "(Jamie Tarabay makes the same point.)

This is a story spreading in US media, and in Gulf regimes media. What is the story? There is a Lebanese crook named Joseph Asmar. DEA agents entrapped him by posing as drug dealers who needed to launder money. In taped conversations, he bragged about his ties to all sorts of people in the Middle East, including Hizbullah. There was no evidence found of any links between him and HIzbullah, so the story become: "U.S. says Hezbollah associate pleads guilty to money laundering conspiracy"PS Notice how US media obediently carry US government stories without requiring evidence.

"Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque has once again been ranked by travellers as the world’s second favourite landmark, according to TripAdvisor." (thanks Fred) Now who in the world does not want to see the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque? Who?

Qatari regime media are still avoiding attacking the Saudi regime despite full assault on the Qatari regime and the Emir in Saudi regime media. Today, hoping to appease the Saudi regime, Qatari regime returns a Saudi activist to Qatar.
‏⁧‫#قطر_ترحل_محمدالعتيبي_للسعودية‬⁩

"In fact, more than 167,000 young people age 17 and under married in 38 states between 2000 and 2010, according to a search of available marriage license data by a group called Unchained at Last, which aims to ban child marriage. The search turned up cases of 12-year-old girls married in Alaska, Louisiana and South Carolina, while other states simply had categories of “14 and younger.” Unchained at Last was not able to get data for the other states. But it extrapolated that in the entire country, there were almost 250,000 child marriages between 2000 and 2010. Some backing for that estimate comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, which says that at least 57,800 Americans age 15 to 17 reported being in marriages in 2014."

Regarding the clash between Erdogan's thugs and protesters in Washington, DC: I looked at the footage and I was stuck at how close protesters were allowed to get to Erdogan by Secret Service. Can you imagine porters being allowed that close to Netanyahu? Netanyahu's armed thugs would have shot at them without even a warning, and US media and Congress would have applauded.

Friday, May 26, 2017

Saudi regime sold this spectacle to Trump as part of the Center for combating extremism in the Kingdom. In reality, this is part of the Ministry of Interior's program of surveillance to spot and punish anyone who disagrees with the regime.

PS Some observed that most the employees are watching porn on their screens.

The Awqaf Minister in Morocco called being Christian or Shi`ite a "virus". Notice that Arab regime bigoted rhetoric against Christians, Shi`ites, and Alawites don't get cover in Western media and don't result in Congressional hearings.

This is the opinion of a largely conservative court: "U.S. Chief Circuit Judge Roger Gregory wrote that the text of Trump’s executive order, which was challenged in courts across the country for targeting members of a particular faith, “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”" Yet, just last week, in the wake of Trump's visit, the secretary-general of the Muslim League said that all statements and decisions by Trump were not directed against Islam or Muslims but against extremists.

Many of the intellectuals who have been sympathetic to Turkey, Qatar, and or Ikhwan, have been voicing criticisms of Saudi media's attacks on Qatar. This fellow is the head of the Saudi association of political science. He says below: "It really distresses us that today's Saudi newspapers are not like yesterday's newspapers. And the TV channels attributed to Saudi Arabia have no restraints and lacks objectivity, credibility, and professional ethics."

"There can be absolutely no coincidence at all that this latest repressive action follows the trip of the US president to the Gulf. The public show of support to Saudi Arabia extends to its neighbour Bahrain, whose ruling elite is nothing more than an extension of Riyadh. To witness such violence immediately following the visit of the president sends one very clear message: Trump backs the repression of democracy in the Gulf."

"The warming ties between Israel and US-aligned Arab regimes has come at the expense of solidarity with Palestinians." "According to The New York Times, Netanyahu’s flirtation with the Saudis and other regional governments is aimed at “subordinating the Palestinian dispute as a secondary issue.” " (thanks Amir)

Thus far, this is clear: Qatar does not want to escalate and it weirdly focusing ints attacks (rather mildly) on the media of UAE and Saudi regime as if those media are independent and acting on their own. They also are using the American theme of "false news" and rumors. But the behavior of the Qatari regime media on that night reveals something else: as if there are divisions on top, and lack of a coordinated message. The Saudi and and UAE media have been preparing for this: it was clear that things have been simmering. Qatari regime media have been mocking and needling Saudi Arabia and UAE for a while now. The funny part is this: Saudi regime media focus their attack on Qatari regime on the charge that it is too close to Israel and Iran, and that it hosts US military base.

It says "Whoever quibbles with Al-Riyadh, the capital of the Arab and Islamic world, and the capital of combating terrorism at the global level, and capital of the economic changes in the region, will collide with a wall which will finish off his existence". I see a diplomatic offensive underway.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Of course, it will start now: that Iran will be blamed for hacking the Qatari News Agency website and starting the rift between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Only those who don't know a word of Arabic and who has not read or watched the media of the two regimes in the last 12 hours will believe this. It was clear that Saudi regime was prepared for this in advance: the column already appeared in the morning papers against Qatar, and the guests were already lined up to voice criticisms of the Qatari regime and its Emir. It makes more sense that the Saudi regime was behind the hacking if there was any hacking. The statements of the Emir sounded true to me, and they are in line with the previous stances of Qatar. So either there was an inside sabotage within the Qatari regime or the Saudis were behind the hacking with the assistance of their friends the Israelis. And if Iran was behind the hacking, why were the statements about Iran not far more favorable?

Saudi regime today banned Tayyar.org (the official website of the `Awni movement in Lebanon) to punish them because Jubran Basil said that he was not consulted before the release of the Riyadh statement. Donald: what have you done?

I have not been watching Aljazeera at all in recent years. It is not watchable really. Such crude and vulgar propaganda. They are airing a report on the Iranian lobby in the US: and they invoiced Vali Nasr in that categorization. The hilarious part: they invited an expert from WINEP to speak about the dangers of the Iranian lobby.

Al-Arabiyya TV (see below) is hosting Egyptian Saudi propagandists to attack the Emir of Qatar. I am told that Qatari regime Al-Jazeera is responding in kind but I am watching Al-Arabiyya. One guest said that the Emir is mentally ill.

It is funny that Gulf regimes when they attack one another they still accuse the other of being close to Israel. Of all the "false"? statements attributed to Emir of Qatar, the Al-Arabiyya TV attacks on Qatari regime (see post below) are headlined: Emir of Qatar says that we have good relations with Israel".

I noticed that the speaker couldn't even pronounce the words Allahu Akbar in the statement. Those criminals in Western capitals who are drawn to the kooky ideology and terrorism of ISIS don't even bother to learn two Arabic words?

So what happened today: the Qatari News Agency was hacked and it posted statements by the Qatari Emir in which he criticized US policies and declared that Hamas and Hizbullah are resistance movement and had warm words about Iran. Al-Arabiyya TV (owned by the deputy Crown Prince) went berserk: it unleashed on the Qatari regime and hosted various guests to attack the Qatari regime even AFTER the Qatari regime issued a statement denying that the Emir made those statements.

PS Wow. Al-Arabiyya can't stop. They are still unleashing against the Qatari regime. More fun in inter-Arab relations is ahead of us.

He explains that all what they want is a nice tone, that is all: "Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert on U.S. relations with the Muslim world, said the speech could help reset the Trump administration’s relationship with Muslims — if he sticks to the same tone."

"“One of the things that we will discuss is the purchase of lots of beautiful military equipment, because nobody makes it like the United States,” Trump told reporters ahead of his talks with the Qatari leader. “And for us that means jobs, and it also means, frankly, great security back here, which we want.”"

How they are so easily impressed with oil luxuries: "Trump gave his remarks in an opulent hall of the King Abdul Aziz International Conference Center, where crystal chandeliers hung from the gilded ceiling and attendees sat in plush armchairs. " That is what I call investigative journalism.

The same people who bashed Trump daily during his campaign and after his election, suddenly changed their tunes once criticisms of Trump were banned by GCC rulers: "“Very candid, very articulate,” said Abdulla, who was especially heartened that Trump had singled out Iran for criticism. He worried, though, that Trump’s mercurial personality might mean a sudden change in course. And Trump’s refusal to mention the lack of freedom in the Arab world was a “valid criticism,” he said."

If you read a criticism of Qatari regime in DC think tank, the person is often an advocate of the Saudi regime. And if you read criticisms of the Saudi regime--as rare as it is--the writer is often an advocate of the Qatari regime.

Monday, May 22, 2017

By the way, I don't know what you may have heard, but the Saudi prince to the left, is extremely funny and is known as a great conversationalist in the tradition of Isiah Berlin. Just don't tickle him. It is his weakness.

As the Trump family was having dinner privately in their residence in Saudi Arabia, an Arab butler decided to eavesdrop on their private conversation. He relayed to his friend this (my translation from Arabic): "At night as they were all in the Trump family sitting around and eating from the "mountain" of rice in front of them, he heard their conversation clearly. They were badmouthing us (Arabs) and saying that we are dumb and has no personality or brain".

So basically, Trump and his clique believe that Islam is an evil and dangerous religion, but that Wahhabiyyah is a peaceful religion. Trump wants all Muslims to follow Wahhabiyyah in order to stem out fanaticism and extremism in the region. That should work.

"Reforms that seem obvious to Westerners, such as allowing women to drive, come slowly in this absolute monarchy. As one woman, a textile artist, put it when asked about the prospect for reforms: “It’s like a glass of water with a layer of mud at the bottom. Each time you add another level of fresh water, the glass becomes clearer.”" Official Saudi regime propagandists were circulating this piece.

Another apologetic puff piece by Ben Hubbard about Saudi regime. He never manages to find one Saudi person who is critical of the regime, and if he is to interview an expert, it is always someone apologetic about the regime.

The joke being told on Arab social media: that First Lady of the US entered the royal palace in Saudi Arabia and saw 155 women. She asked them who they were? They answered: we are the First Lady of Saudi Arabia.

To all my students who met her and loved her, I am sad to report that Lebanese-Palestinian-American writer, Fay Afaf Kanafani died the other day. I first met Afaf maybe around late 1990s, when I still lived in Berkeley. She called me one day, and asked me to speak about Palestine to a group of Arab and Jewish women who met in San Francisco and discussed foreign policy. We chatted on the phone and she sounded very young. She then asked me to pick her up at her place in Oakland, and then we would go together to San Francisco. I was astonished when she answered the door, as she looked so much older than what she sounded on the phone: and I realized that her group was a group of retired older women. As soon as I met her in person, she asked me if I knew of a Professor Kanafani at UC, Berkeley, who taught in the engineering department. I said that I did not know him but that I have heard negative things about him: that he would refuse to speak Arabic with Arab students and would tell them: we are in America, and we have to speak English. She said: oh, that is my son. Tactless me, as usual. I addressed her group and we talked about her experience living in Lebanon and working in the administration of Lebanese University (Lebanon is so small, that I later discovered that she worked with my cousin Shadya Alayli). Afaf called me often and invited me to eat Lebanese food, but I never went. But she did show me the pictures of her late husband, Fu'ad (her second husband, the love of her life). She then invited me to her book party at UC, Berkeley when her book, Nadia: Captive of Hope was released. She also established a scholarship fund for women working on Middle East women topics. I went and saw her being very happy, and she introduced me to two of her three sons. Her granddaughter was present and she read excerpts of the book. I never saw Afaf more happy. I read the book and contents and the ending (especially the part about the horrific experience that she and her (second) husband were subjected to in Lebanon during the war) distressed me a great deal. I called her in tears that night, and she comforted me, telling me that she was OK, now and that she never let what she went through to influence her or to derail her life plans. The book was rather original but very painful (to read and to write--I am sure): it was the first book by an Arab who talked candidly about being sexually molested by her father, and the sexual assaults that maids at the home were subjected to by her father and brother. She also spoke about physical and sexual abuse at the hand of her first husband, when she lived in Palestine. Her family married her off in the 1930s, and she moved to Palestine with her new (terrible) husband. Her experience in Palestine and witnessing An-Nakbah made her a lifelong activist for Palestine. The book was very moving and I added it to the list of books of 1st person narratives in my Gender and Sexuality in the Middle East class. And then--I forgot who: a student suggested that we invite her to class to a potluck and discuss her book with her. A student volunteered to pick her up from Oakland and there began a tradition in my Gender class: that Afaf would be invited to a potluck in my class to discuss her book (Valerie Marleau was one of her volunteer drivers one year, and she promised me to provide her with bathroom breaks during the long trip to Oakland). It happened every semester, or every year when the Gender class was being offered annually and not every semester. She was so lively and had such charm, and she always dressed (very Lebanese) very elegantly to those events. Students always observed that I was always protective of her during those meetings, and that I tried to shield her from tough questions. I was always happy to see her, and students often stayed for hours with her to talk about her life. She was so positive about life and about the future. She told us that her sons (especially two of the three) were furious with her about the book, and that none were happy about it. But two stopped talking to her. But she was not in any way feeling guilty about that: she knew that she did not do anything wrong and that it was their problem, not hers. Her visits to my class ended only five years ago: she told me bluntly: I am too old now to make that trip. She also would tell me about her computer art work which she got into. She was 99: I wished that lived to be 100 and more. Over the years, I became more critical of the book, from a gender and class perspective. She once saw me at a conference (where she met dear friend Lama Dajani who was thrilled to meet her, and I did not know that Lama had read her book and was deeply moved by it). Afaf pressed me if there was anything I did not like about the book, and I only gave her one example, and we discussed that. Many students of mine here on Facebook have met her and got to like her.

PS Jenn-Jarred Neal took this picture us back in 2004, in one of those potlucks).

Saturday, May 20, 2017

This Saudi journalist has a point. He says: "I think that the interaction regarding Trump's daughter is not sexual frenzy, as some are portraying it. In reality, there is nothing in this political and economic event on which we have an honest opinion except this".

The mouthpiece of Prince Khalid bin Sultan, Al-Hayat, headlines: "Saudi Arabia strongly supports Trump Policies in Palestine---and Deterring Iran" (Iran is an afterthought, it is all about Palestine. But what are Trump's views on Palestine, one wonders).

This is so insane and so stupid and it shows you how the establishment is so ready and eager at a moment's notice to back to Cold War fever. There aren't enough conflicts and wars in the world for the DC establishment. They want more blood.

There is no popular factual history of the US role in WWII. Since I came to US, I was struck that popular culture about the war are so wrong and based on fallacies and propaganda. Take the notorious appeasement policies of Neville Chamberlain. The disgraceful policies of appeasement (which certainly facilitated the expansion of the rule of Hitler--he even was expecting a stronger French and British reaction to his provocations in 1938) were not entirely Chamberalain's. FDR was also an appeaser and sent a telegram to Chamberlain congratulating him on his peace talks with Hitler, on the eve of Munich.

Comic by Terry Furry, reproduced from "Heard the One About the Funny Leftist?" by Cris Thompson, East Bay Express

As'ad's Bio

As'ad AbuKhalil, born March 16, 1960. From Tyre, Lebanon, grew up in Beirut. Received his BA and MA from American University of Beirut in pol sc. Came to US in 1983 and received his PhD in comparative government from Georgetown University. Taught at Tufts University, Georgetown University, George Washington University, Colorado College, and Randolph-Macon Woman's College. Served as a Scholar-in-Residence at Middle East Institute in Washington DC. He served as free-lance Middle East consultant for NBC News and ABC News, an experience that only served to increase his disdain for maintream US media. He is now professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. His favorite food is fried eggplants.

The comments that appear in the comments' section are unedited and uncensored. The thoughtful and thoughtless, sane and insane, loving and hateful, wise and unwise ideas that they contain do not represent the Angry Arab. They only represent those who write them, whoever they are.